- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@minimeech feel like some of my confusion with paragraph 2, and hence this question, was that I didn't register that letting a horse live to maturity would result in full-grown buried remains. I guess I processed that the horse never died?? anyways, tough question!
Hypothesis 1: kill off most young males, buried + keep females around to mature, buried --> domesticated for meat or milk. Hypothesis doesn't mention anything about grown males, so I'm assuming they're left roaming and therefore wouldn't be found in the Botai site remains.
This matches the hypothetical in Q10: the remains are young males and matured females. This meets the sufficient condition in the hypothesis, and triggers "domesticated for meat or milk."
Hypothesis 2: kill mostly adult males for meat, buried --> killed wild horses for meat
Q10 hypothetical indicates there are young males buried, not mature males, so sufficient wouldn't trigger. It also doesn't factor in the fully grown females.
Hypothesis 3: young males killed, buried --> domesticated for riding
Seems like it could explain the Q10 hypothetical for the young male remains, but we don't really know where the Q10 grown females fit into this hypothesis. (not as confident in my analysis on this one)
Hi @Kevin_Lin, I'm not Tyler, but did make a similar mistake and was skimming through the discussion posts for other explanations.
I read "anything that lowers blood cholesterol levels also lower the risk of hardening of the arteries" as a correlative statement. Something that lowered cholesterol also happened to lower the risk of artery hardening. Am I tripping myself up about it? It seemed reasonable on the first read that this was a casual claim, but then I thought about correlation/causation....
Overall though, even if there was a (reasonable) correlation/causation jump occurring, the main hurdle/assumption is establishing whether the data in the study is correct, so I see why D is the correct AC.
Can someone help explain AC C please? I understand that "investment decreases" is a necessary condition of weak economy. However, "prices constant" is also a necessary condition. Why doesn't that matter for AC C? In my head, the economy is weak only if prices are constant and unemployment rises/investment decreases.
I selected AC A because I interpreted that "last few years" could mean the last hundred years. (Maybe that was unreasonable, but I was applying LR-thinking where the word "some" has a lot of variation.) If that were the case, then I thought AC A addresses the recent rise in temperature that even the solar variation theory could not explain. In contrast, I thought that AC E was consistent with both the greenhouse theory and the solar variation theory. Gah!
I guess my takeaway is that "long-term match" also encompasses the "recent rise," not just general trends.
I found this question so tricky. The question stem is for sufficient assumption (which is why I initially picked AC A). But, to trigger the correct conditionals to arrive at the conclusion, we need to identify the necessary assumption.
Help! I understood most of AC D, but the part that threw me off was "fails to establish." I thought the argument did establish that something true of some people was true of only those people. It established that Hana's brothers are the only possible guests to gift the recording. But the AC says "fails to establish." Can someone explain what I'm misreading?
When reviewing questions in a drill, it's helpful that the analytics shows the question history. Would it be possible to also include a quick overview of which AC I selected during my previous attempt(s) without actually clicking on the previous attempt? It would be great to see if I'm consistently picking the same wrong AC, if I'm switching between wrong ACs, or if I had a lucky correct guess during the first attempt. Thanks!
@alexfbaird I had to squint a bit to see Xavier agreeing, but in trying my own process of trying to dissect AC E:
Premise 1 for Xavier: few people want to sit outside and breathe fumes
Premise 2 for X: the new fast-food place did not have indoor seating
MSS for X: few people would want to go to the fast-food place (they don't want to sit outside, and there's no indoor seating as an option). From there, I think there is a reasonable connection that a business with low demand would be a risky venture. Also given the other answer choices, E seems alright. (I will say, this neglects the possibility that a fast-food place could succeed off of just take-out, but I digress.)